United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on African Affairs, Committee on

Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

2:00 p.m., EDT

Wednesday,

July 31, 1996

INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

Food Security in Africa

Statement of Harold J. Johnson, Associate Director,

International Relations and Trade Issues, National

Security and International Affairs Division

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217

Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the food security situation in

Africa. My statement will cover

(1) the current status and future outlook for world food security in

general,

(2)Africa’s food security dilemma in particular,

(3)U.S. food aid and food aid programs, and

(4)the World Food Summit scheduled for November of this year.

My testimony is based on some of our past work on food security issues,

as well as preliminary observations on work that we are conducting, at

your request, on global food security issues and U.S. government

preparations for the World Food Summit.

Current Status and

Future Outlook for

World Food Security

Food security exists when all people at all times have physical and

economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for a

productive and healthy life. Food security has several important

dimensions:

(1)Availability — achieved when sufficient supplies of food of appropriate

quality are consistently available to all individuals;

(2)Access — ensured when households and all individuals in them have

adequate resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.

(3)Utilization — refers to the proper biological use of food through

adequate diet, water, sanitation, and health care.

The Administration acknowledges that world food security is important to

the United States for humanitarian, economic, and national security

reasons.

The United States and other nations that signed the 1974 World Food

Conference Declaration committed to achieving world food security

within 10 years. More than 20 years later, the world still falls far short of

Page 1 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
this goal.1

 Eighty-eight countries are currently classified as low-income

and food-deficit states. According to FAO, close to 800 million people, or 

20 percent of the developing world’s population, are chronically

undernourished. Most of these people are in South Asia and sub-Saharan

Africa. In addition, millions of other people in more affluent societies do

not have enough food to meet their basic needs. And millions more

experience prolonged hunger during part of the year, or suffer birth

defects, growth retardation, mental deficiency, lethargy, blindness, or

death because they do not have the diversity of food necessary to meet

their total needs. An estimated 200 million children under the age of 5

suffer protein or energy deficiencies.

FAO has projected that, unless the root causes underlying food security are

addressed by 2010, 700 million to 800 million persons worldwide will still

be chronically undernourished. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, FAO projects

that the chronically undernourished will increase from about 200 million

to more than 300 million people in the next 15 years (see app. V). Most of

the rest of the chronically undernourished will be found in South Asia.

Poverty is a primary obstacle to food security. Worldwide, 1.3 billion

people, or nearly one-quarter of the world’s population, live on less than 

1 dollar a day. Their low income makes them especially vulnerable when

prices for basic commodities increase rapidly and sharply. Other

important factors affecting food security include weather, civil strife and

war, widespread unemployment or underemployment, inadequate returns

to food producers, unsustainable use of natural resources, high debt

service, overvalued exchange rates, and distorted international markets.

Future Outlook Currently, world grain stocks are at a 20-year low, grain prices are at an

all-time high, and world food aid is in a sharp decline (see apps. I-III).

Food insecurity and food aid problems could increase significantly over

the short, medium, and long run. There are several reasons why this is so.

Although population growth rates have been declining , the world’s

population is expected to increase by 2.6 billion people by 2025. As a

result, even with modest income growth, world food supplies will have to

1

The world has made some important progress toward reducing food insecurity. For example,

according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) estimates, 35 percent of

people in developing countries were chronically malnourished in 1969-71 but only 20 percent by

1990-92.

Page 2 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
at least double by that year according to the World Bank.2

 The Bank

concludes that due to land and water constraints, future increases in food

supplies must come primarily from increasing yields, rather than from area

expansion and more irrigation. This would require a doubling of current

yields over the next 30 years, which is uncertain. (See also app. IV.)

An October 1995 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic

Research Service (ERS) study3

 found that world food aid needs will nearly

double over the next decade simply to maintain current consumption

levels. This is even if one makes reasonably optimistic assumptions about

recipient countries’ ability to produce their own food or to import food

commercially. Far higher food aid levels would be required if the target

was to meet minimum nutritional standards. The study concluded that

there is a looming mismatch between food aid resources and needs. If

global food aid budgets are maintained at 1995 levels, the gap between

needs and resources will grow rapidly. Factors limiting food aid

availabilities include changes in agricultural policies that will likely reduce

agricultural surpluses, and reductions in aid budgets of donor countries.

According to the study, funding will be the major factor affecting food aid

shipments in the future. It noted that recent governmentwide budget

reductions in the United States and in some other countries have already

resulted in significant reductions in food aid donations. For example, food

aid shipments of grain by donors peaked at 15.2 million metric tons (mmt)

in 1992-93, declined to 12.6 mmt in 1993-94, and were estimated to have

declined to 8.4 mmt in 1994-95. U.S. shipments peaked at 8.5 mmt in

1992-93 and were estimated to drop to 4.2 mmt by 1994-95. These

reductions have already affected the food security of the recipient

countries.

Other factors affecting the future of world food security include the

following:

(1)Many major agricultural producers, including the United States,

Canada, Australia, and the European Union, are implementing increasingly

more market-oriented agricultural policies, partly in response to the 1994

Uruguay Round trade agreement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade (GATT). More market-oriented policies are likely to result in a

reduction of agricultural surpluses and in less grain held in stocks,

2

Alex F. McCalla, Agriculture and Food Needs to 2025: Why We Should Be Concerned (Washington,

D.C.: The World Bank, October 1994).

3

Food Aid Needs and Availabilities: Projections for 2005 (Washington, D.C.: USDA Economic Research

Service, October 1995).

Page 3 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
particularly in government-held stocks. Lower average stocks, in turn, may

lead to more year-to-year volatility in grain markets. Current U.S.

agricultural policy removes the link between income support payments

and farm prices. As a result, incentives for surplus agricultural production

are diminished. U.S. government-held stocks are likely to decline sharply.

(2)Although signatories to the 1994 Uruguay Round trade agreement

agreed to establish mechanisms to ensure that implementation would not

adversely affect food aid commitments to meet the authentic needs of

developing countries and stressed the need for bona fide food aid, the

agreement was not specific on how this is to be accomplished.

(3)To the extent that the trade agreement results in slightly higher grain

prices than without the agreement, food aid availabilities may be reduced

because a given budget will purchase less grain.

Africa’s Food Security

Dilemma

In terms of food security and regions of the world, Africa faces the most

difficulties. According to FAO, Africa currently accounts for about

200 million, or about 25 percent, of the chronically malnourished people in

developing countries. However, if no action is taken to reverse the present

trend, by 2010 this figure could exceed 300 million and as much as

40 percent of the chronically malnourished. Sub-Saharan Africa is the only

region where chronic malnutrition is expected to increase between now

and 2010. (See app. V.)

According to one recent study,4

 Africa’s agricultural production and trade

have been affected by a variety of factors from the period following

independence to the present, including: (1) the effects of the Cold War on

agricultural and rural development policies, (2) chronic civil and social

strife and the displacement of populations, (3) the mismanagement of

national resources, (4) the failure to build capacity in critical areas such as

policy analysis and entrepreneurship, (5) developments in the agriculture

sectors and policies of industrialized countries, (6) the reduction in

demand for primary commodities, (7) shocks caused by the oil crisis,

(8) periodic droughts,5

 and (9) the entry of the former Soviet Union into

world markets.

4

A 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa, eds. Ousmane

Badiane and Christopher L. Delgado (Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute,

June 1995).

5

Major droughts occurred in 1972-73, 1983-84, 1992-93, and 1994-95. Other droughts, less severe and

more localized, have occurred over the years.

Page 4 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
In May 1996 FAO designated 14 of 48 sub-Saharan countries (involving

22 million people) as facing exceptional food emergencies.6

 The countries

and the reasons cited by FAO for the emergencies are listed in table 1.

Table 1: Sub-Saharan Countries

Facing Exceptional Food Emergencies,

May 1996

Country Reasons for Emergency

Angola Population displacement

Burundi Civil strife, displacement of rural population

Eritrea Reduced harvest, large number of vulnerable people

Ethiopia Large number of vulnerable people, localized drought

Lesotho Drought-reduced harvest

Liberia Civil disturbances, population displacement, shortage of farm

inputs

Malawi Drought-reduced harvest, Mozambican refugees

Mozambique Displacement of rural population

Rwanda Population displacement, reduced plantings

Sierra Leone Population displacement

Somalia Civil strife, poor harvest

Sudan Displaced persons, localized food deficits, civil strife

Zaire Rwandan refugees, civil disturbances affecting food distribution

Zambia Drought-reduced harvest

Source: FAO.

FAO described the food security situation for sub-Saharan Africa as

precarious, as global cereal supplies tighten and food availabilities shrink.

Sharp increases in cereal prices on the world market and the consequent

higher cost of cereal imports, coupled with balance of payments

difficulties in food-deficit countries, will mean that a large proportion of

food imports will need to be covered by food aid. However, FAO forecasts

that global availability of food aid in 1995-96 will be only 7.6 million tons,

down for the third consecutive year. The reduced availability and stiff

competition for food aid from countries of Eastern Europe and the former

Soviet Union suggests that Africa’s minimum food needs in 1996-97 will

remain unmet. Unless exceptional food aid allocations are made, FAO said,

undernutrition will rise further from its already high level.7

6

Food Supply Situation and Crop Prospects in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rome: FAO, May 1996).

7

The report found no signs of an imminent improvement in the food supply situation of sub-Saharan

Africa as a whole. However, it did note some positive signs. For example, it said the supply situation is

generally satisfactory in western Africa, following good harvests in most Sahelian and coastal

countries.

Page 5 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
Our analysis of Department of Agriculture data indicates that sub-Saharan

Africa’s grains food deficit relative to its nutrition-based food needs may

have increased from as much as 12 percent in 1993-94 to as much as

17 percent in 1994-95. In other words, the hungry had even less food to eat.

The data also indicate an increase in the deficit for Latin America from as

much as 16 percent in 1993-94 to 22 percent in 1994-95. However, the

deficit probably remained quite small for food aid recipient countries in

Asia, at less than 3 percent. (See app. VI.) During 1994-96, countries in Asia

and the Middle East received about 19 percent of all U.S food aid.

Sub-Saharan Africa’s share increased from about 31 percent to 33 percent

between 1994 and 1995, but may drop to 26 percent in 1996. The share of

Latin American and Caribbean recipients dropped from about 21 percent

in 1994 to 16 percent in 1995. (See app. VII.)

Some Key Factors

Affecting the Future

Outlook for Sub-Saharan

Food Security

Food security in sub-Saharan Africa is threatened by continuing and rapid

population growth. It is the only region in the world where the growth

rate, currently at about 3.2 percent, has not started to decline.8

 (Latin

America’s rate peaked at 2.9 percent in the early 1960s and South Asia’s

rate at 2.5 percent in the late 1960s.) Population growth has important

consequences for food security, since Africa’s food consumption currently

exceeds its food production. Presently, 30 percent of sub-Saharan Africa’s

cereal output is in areas of low and unreliable rainfall. Fifty percent of

cultivable land is in arid and semi-arid regions. Unless food production

expands at a rapid rate, imports will have to increase dramatically to

improve Africa’s food security. However, a number of African countries

face a bleak economic outlook. Continuing balance of payments

difficulties are seriously limiting their capacity for increasing commercial

exports as well as imports. Exports of primary commodities, the main

source of revenue for sub-Saharan Africa, show a 20-year history of

declining terms of trade.9

 The sharp rise in international cereal prices is

estimated to have increased the food import bill of the low-income,

food-deficit countries of sub-Saharan Africa by approximately $1 billion

during 1994-95.10

In terms of income, many Africans are worse off today than they were a

decade ago, and real per capita income is projected to grow at only 

8

According to FAO, demographic projections for 2010 by the United Nations put the growth rate at 

2.9 percent. This would still result in an estimated 300 million chronically undernourished people.

9

See A. Marter and A. Gordon, “Emerging Issues Confronting the Renewable Natural Resources Sector

in Sub-Saharan Africa, “ Food Policy (Exeter, U.K.: May 1996).

10Food Supply Situation and Crop Prospects in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Page 6 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
0.3 percent during the 1990s. By the year 2000, 30 percent of the world’s

poor are expected to be in sub-Saharan Africa, compared to 16 percent in

the mid-1980s. Poverty places a heavy burden on sub-Saharan Africa’s

efforts to improve its food security situation, since income is more likely

to be needed for current consumption at the expense of savings that could

help finance investments in economic development. Increasing

urbanization also adversely affects sub-Saharan efforts to improve its

situation. At the current rate of urbanization (about 8 percent per year),

41 percent of the population is expected to be urban based by the turn of

the century. By 2020, at least 30 cities in sub-Saharan Africa are expected

to have more than 1 million inhabitants. As urbanization increases, the

proportion of people not producing food will increase, and the quality of

the traditional rural agricultural work force may deteriorate due to outmigration of some of the most productive people from rural areas.

Moreover, because most migrants are likely to be men, a concomitant

increase in female-headed households may occur. Increased urbanization

is also likely to bolster the need to supply city populations with more

water, diverting supply away from agricultural areas.11

U.S. Development and

Trade Assistance Policy

Toward Sub-Saharan Africa

In February 1996 the U.S. Trade Representative sent the President a

comprehensive trade and development policy for the 48 countries of

sub-Saharan Africa. According to the report, Africa’s aspirations for

growth and development have been hampered by a combination of

problems, including flawed economic policy choices, political

mismanagement and an absence of democratic political institutions, weak

private sectors stifled by dominating parastatals, overwhelming debt

burdens, poverty and widespread unemployment, and environmental

degradation. The report says that the primary responsibility for achieving

sustainable economic development and increased trade and investment

lies with the people and leaders of Africa.12

It also concludes that bilateral and multilateral international cooperation

is essential to reinforce African national efforts and that resources

available to the U.S. government, multilateral institutions, and others

providing official development assistance to Africa are in decline. The

report outlines a policy approach structured around several basic

objectives: promotion of trade and investment liberalization, development

11A. Marter and A. Gordon.

12As discussed in the following section, this approach is consistent with the U.S. Agency for

International Development’s (USAID) development assistance policy and with the government’s

position paper on food security prepared for the World Food Summit.

Page 7 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
of the private sector, enhancement of the infrastructure, and economic

and regulatory reform. However, it contains no discussion of the food

security situation affecting many sub-Saharan African countries and

whether a special strategy is needed to address the problem.

U.S. Food Aid and

Food Aid Programs

U.S. food aid programs have sought to enhance food security in developing

countries through the use of agricultural commodities and local currencies

to (1) combat world hunger and malnutrition and their causes;

(2) promote sustainable economic development, including agricultural

development; (3) expand international trade; (4) develop and expand

export markets for U.S. agricultural commodities; and (5) encourage the

growth of private enterprise and democratic participation in developing

countries.

Historically, the United States has provided much of the world’s food aid.

(As shown in app. III, other major donors over the years include Australia,

Canada, the European Union, and Japan.) According to USDA, in 1995, the

United States provided about $1.35 billion worth of food aid assistance,

including $500 million for emergency relief. U.S. food aid, primarily under

the Public Law 480 (Food for Peace) Program, has decreased in absolute

terms and as a percentage of total U.S. agricultural exports since the 1950s

and 1960s when it was the primary U.S. agricultural export program. More

recently, the amount of U.S. food aid has dropped dramatically from

13.1 million metric tons in fiscal year 1993 to an estimated 4.0 million

metric tons in fiscal year 1995. ( See app. VII.) The decrease was due in

part to budgetary constraints and the reduction of government-held

commodity surpluses. A similar trend has taken place in other donor

countries including the European Union, Canada, and Australia.

Despite sub-Saharan Africa’s growing food security needs, U.S. food aid

varies due in part to unpredictable emergency food needs. According to

the Congressional Research Service, in fiscal year 1993 when eastern and

southern Africa experienced a major drought, U.S. food aid amounted to

43 percent of bilateral aid, and in 1994, when conditions improved, it

dropped to 27 percent.13 Most U.S. sub-Saharan Africa food aid is in the

form of emergency and humanitarian grants under title II of the Public

Law 480 program. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa receive a significant

proportion of title II food aid annually.

13Raymond W. Copson, Africa: U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues, Library of Congress, Congressional

Research Service Issue Brief IB95052 (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 1996).

Page 8 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
According to USDA’s Economic Research Service, the distribution of U.S.

food aid has changed in the last 5 years mainly as a result of the fall of the

Communist system in Europe and changing food needs around the world.

It reports that from 1989 through 1992, Africa received the largest share of

U.S. food aid. However, it states that in 1993 the region that received the

largest share was Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union countries,

especially Russia. Concurrently, the share of U.S. food aid to Asia and

Latin America decreased.14 (See also app. VII.)

Sub-Saharan African countries rarely receive long-term concessional food

aid loans under title I of the Public Law 480 program, since only a few

countries are in a position to make repayments. A few of Africa’s poorest

countries have received U.S. food donations under title III of the Public

Law 480 program, known as “Food for Development,” which can be used

for feeding programs or sold on the open market, with proceeds to be used

for development purposes. A few African countries have benefitted under

section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended which permits

donations of surplus food to developing countries, emerging democracies,

and relief organizations.

U.S. food aid programs have not been without problems. For example, in a

1993 review,15 we identified several problems involving the U.S. Agency for

International Development’s (USAID) management of Public Law 480 titles

II and III food aid programs, most notably that USAID had not developed

policy guidance on how food aid should be used as a means of

contributing to long-term food security. Other problems included USAID’s

lack of criteria and guidance for implementing food aid programs, USAID’s

inability to demonstrate the impact of its food aid programs on food

security, and USAID’s failure to ensure accountability for food aid

resources. We made 13 recommendations to USAID for addressing these

problems. In March 1995,16 we reported that USAID had fully or partially

implemented 11 of 13 of the recommendations. Most importantly, in

February 1995, USAID issued written policy guidance on how food aid could

be used to achieve food security and was in the process of developing an

overall “management for results” approach that will change the focus from

measuring program outputs to measuring impact.

14Agricultural Export Programs (Washington, D.C.: USDA/ERS).

15See Food Aid: Management Improvements Are Needed to Achieve Program Objectives

(GAO/NSIAD-93-168, July 23, 1993). The study examined programs in eight overseas missions,

including missions in three African countries—Burkina Faso, Uganda, and Zambia).

16Foreign Aid: Actions Taken to Improve Food Aid Management (GAO/NSIAD-95-74, Mar. 23, 1995).

Page 9 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
In a 1995 review,17 we found that title I could be making a meaningful,

short-term contribution to the food supply in some recipient countries, but

that its contribution to sustainable economic development was minimal

because of the program’s small size relative to each country’s overall

development needs. Also, we noted that title I’s importance to helping

develop long-term agricultural markets—one of its primary objectives—

had not been demonstrated, and that the program’s multiple and

sometimes competing goals and objectives and various program

requirements made it difficult for USDA to integrate title I into an effective

program strategy.

World Food Summit In November 1996 a World Food Summit will be held in Rome. This is the

first major conference of world leaders to assess world food security

issues since 1974. Countries attending the summit are trying to reach

agreement on a broad policy statement and plan of action for significantly

advancing world progress toward achieving food security. The summit will

not seek to establish new institutions for promoting food security nor

pledges from donor countries for increased levels of assistance. It is not

clear at this time whether an attempt will be made to secure agreement on

a target year for achieving global food security.

Preparations for the summit have been underway for some time. Since

January 1996, various forums have discussed suggested drafts of a policy

statement and plan of action for the summit and country and private

sector views on world food security. FAO member countries have prepared

individual country position papers, laying out their views on actions

needed to advance world food security and describing the status of food

security within their respective borders. In addition, countries within

specific geographical regions (e.g., North American, Latin America, etc.)

have prepared regional papers on the subject.

In early July, the U.S. government finalized a position paper for the summit

that summarizes its views on food security. In addition, the United States

completed a regional paper that was jointly prepared with Canada. (A

high-level interagency task force, co-led by USDA, the State Department,

and USAID prepared the U.S. paper and input for the joint paper with

Canada.). According to the U.S. paper, the root causes of food insecurity

must be addressed by both individual countries and the international

community as a whole. However, the paper states that because of the

17See Food Aid: Competing Goals and Requirements Hinder Title I Program Results (GAO/GGD-95-68,

June 26, 1995). The review included audit work in seven overseas posts, including two in Africa (Egypt

and Morocco).

Page 10 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
difficult budget environment in both the United States and abroad,

developing countries will have to take primary responsibility for improving

their own food security with limited external assistance.

In the U.S.’ view, countries that have demonstrated the most progress in

achieving food security are those that have seriously pursued policy

reform, macroeconomic stabilization, and structural adjustment, while

focusing government activities on public goods investment and provision

of safety nets. Such commitment and assumption of responsibility at the

national level create a climate conducive to private and public external

investment. Consequently, the United States plans to concentrate its food

assistance efforts on those countries that are willing to review and change

their national policies to improve their own food security. This approach is

consistent with USAID statements in recent years that it is concentrating its

assistance efforts on those countries that are partners in development and

where sustainable development results can be achieved. According to

USAID, sustainable development cannot be achieved in countries that are

not willing to change their policies, do not allow their own citizens to

participate adequately in the development process, and have not invested

their own resources in sustainable development or have invested a

disproportionate amount in the military at the expense of development.

The United States has said that it will continue to play a major role in

promoting food security around the world. To this end, the United States

plans to do the following:

• enhance U.S. government support for research and technology

development in agriculture and related sectors, both at home and abroad.

• continue support for food security through the use of agriculture

programs, development assistance, and food aid. Employ an integrated

approach to sustainable development, with a strong emphasis on those

countries that show a good-faith willingness to adopt necessary policy

reforms.

• work with all countries to achieve freer trade and to assure that the

benefits are equitably realized. Urge all countries to open their markets in

the interest of achieving greater stability and participation in the world

market.

• continue support for international efforts to respond to and prevent

humanitarian crises that create a need for emergency food.

• continue efforts to encourage and facilitate implementation of food

security-related actions adopted at recent international conferences or

established in recently agreed-to conventions.

Page 11 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
• work within the multilateral system to enhance global approaches to food

security.

• continue to work toward food security for all Americans.

During July 29-August 22, FAO countries will present and exchange

individual country position papers at a meeting in Italy. In addition, it is

the first meeting where all of the regional country papers will be

exchanged and discussed. The meeting will also discuss a proposed draft

policy statement and plan of action for the summit. Substantive

negotiations among member countries are expected, aimed at trying to

reach a consensus on most, if not all, major issues to be addressed by the

draft. In late September, the Committee on World Food Security will meet

and try to negotiate a final text for use by the summit leaders. If not fully

successful, a senior officials’ meeting will try to accomplish the same

immediately before the summit itself, which is scheduled for

November 13-17.

A variety of issues may arise in the course of the negotiations. Although

we do not know the content at this point, based on discussions we have

had with officials and our monitoring of two forums where comments

were provided on draft position papers for the summit, differences may

surface between developed and developing countries over the amount of

reform the latter need to undertake and the amount of assistance the

former are willing to provide. Other issues that may arise during the

negotiation process include the following:

• Are international grain reserves adequate given the unusually low levels to

which world grain stocks have fallen and the adoption of more

market-oriented agricultural policies by many countries? Do major

agricultural producing/exporting countries have sufficient incentive to

hold stocks adequate for coping with emergency situations? Is some sort

of new global grain reserve required?

• Have agricultural reforms introduced by the 1994 Uruguay Round trade

agreement had any negative effects to date on the least-developed and net

food-importing countries in terms of access to adequate supplies of basic

foodstuffs from external sources on reasonable terms and conditions,

including financing of their normal levels of commercial imports? If so, are

other countries prepared to increase food aid commitments to offset such

effects?

• Will food-insecure countries be asked to open their markets to

international agricultural trade as a condition for receiving assistance

designed to help them achieve food security over the long run? If so, what

Page 12 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
assurances will they obtain that major agricultural producing/exporting

countries will keep their markets fully open at all times, including in times

of tight world supplies and rapidly rising prices?

• In seeking to identify what actions are needed to help all countries achieve

food security, what scenarios of future world agricultural production

should be considered?

• Should a target date for achieving world food security be agreed upon?

Without a target date, will summit signatories be able to outline a realistic

plan of the actions needed to achieve food security? Should a plan of

action estimate the amount of resources required in agricultural

production and food-related investment to achieve food security?

• Given that food aid donations have declined during the past 3 years and

given projections of a significant mismatch between food aid resources

and food aid needs in future years, what will make an action plan for

achieving food security credible to food-insecure countries?

In summary, we believe that the World Food Summit provides an

important opportunity for all countries to address critical issues of world

food security. Hopefully, it will do so in a way that significantly advances

efforts by sub-Saharan African countries to cope with their food security

problems.

This concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy to answer any

questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Page 13 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
Appendix I 

Stocks of World Grain, 1968-96

1968 1970 72 74 76 78 1980 82 84 86 88 1990 92 94 96

0

100

200

300

400

500

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Years

Metric tons (millions) Percent of consumption

Stocks Stock-to-consumption ratio

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service. Based on annual

data for 1967-68 through 1995-96.

Page 14 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
Appendix II 

Relation Between Grain Prices and Food

Aid to Low-Income, Food-Deficit Countries,

1972-96

197273 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tons (millions) Price per ton (dollars)

Food aid Export price

Source: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Annual data from 1971-72

through 1995-96.

Page 15 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
Appendix III 

Food Aid Shipments of Grain by Donors,

1972-96

1972 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

0

5

10

15

20

AAAA AAAA AAAAA

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAAA

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAAA

A

AAAA AAAAA

A

AAA AAA AAAA

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAA

A

A

AAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAAA

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA

AAAA

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAAA

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

Tons (millions)

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAA

A

A

A

United States European Union Canada Japan Australia Others

Source: FAO. Annual data for 1971-72 through 1995-96.

Page 16 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
Appendix IV 

Rate of Global Cereal Production Growth,

Area Cultivated, and Crop Yield, 1966-90

Production Area Yield

0

1

2

3

4

5

Percent

1966-73 1974-82 1983-90

Source: GAO calculations using FAO data.

Page 17 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
Appendix V 

Estimates and Projections of Incidence of

Chronic Undernutrition in Five Regions,

1969-2010

Total Sub-Saharan Africa Near East East Asia South Asia Latin America

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Population (millions)

1969-71 1979-81 1990-92 2010

Note: Data are 3-year averages, except for 2010.

Source: FAO.

Page 18 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
Appendix VI 

Nutrition-Based Food Grain Needs Versus

Food Aid Received by Three Regions,

1993-96

Year

Total grain

required for

nutritional needs

(tons in millions)

Nutrition-based

food aid grain

needs (tons in

millions)

Actual food aid in

grain received

Deficit in

nutrition-based

food aid grain

needs (tons in

millions)

Deficit as percent

of total

nutrition-based

needs

Sub-Saharan Africa

1993-94 60.1 11.7 4.3 7.4 12.3

1994-95 62.6 14.2 3.5 10.7 17.1

1995-96 63.1 13.6 N/A N/A N/A

Latin America

1993-94 8.7 2.8 1.4 1.4 16.1

1994-95 8.8 2.8 0.8 2 22.7

1995-96 9.1 2.6 N/A N/A N/A

Asia

1993-94 252.5 8.7 1.5 7.2 2.9

1994-95 257.9 7.8 1.6 6.2 2.4

1995-96 260.8 9.5 N/A N/A N/A

Source: USDA data, including projected food aid needs. Calculations by GAO.

Legend: N/A= not available

Page 19 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
Appendix VII 

Distribution of U.S. Food Aid by Regions,

1993-96 (fiscal years)

Million metric tons Percent of total U.S. food aid

Region 1993 1994 1995 1996 1993 1994 1995 1996

Asia & Middle East 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.5 10.6 19.4 19.6 19.4

Eastern Europe 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 5.5 6.2 3.8 8.9

Latin America & Caribbean 1.7 1.0 0.6 0.4 13.0 20.5 15.5 16.5

Near East 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 3.1 4.2 2.4 4.1

Newly Independent States 7.1 0.9 0.9 0.6 54.3 17.5 23.8 23.3

Sub-Saharan Africa 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.7 12.2 30.9 33.1 26.2

Others 0.2 0.1 0.1 .0 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7

Total 13.1 4.9 4.0 2.6 100 100 100 100

Source: USDA. Percent calculations by GAO. Data for fiscal year 1996 cover part of the year.

(711221) Page 20 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-217
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100